17)Why This I Dangerous For My Child

18)My 8 Year Old Child Is Suspended For Threatening To
Defend Himself With Gun

20)What I Am Asking The Court To Do

List of Exhibits

A.Certification of Facts Regarding the Marriage of
Plaintiff to Alien Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx.

B.Complaint Regarding Physical Assault in Courtroom

C.Marriage Certificate Between Plaintiff and Xxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx

D.Sworn testimony before the Honorable Judge Pisansky,
that Plaintiff entered into marriage with Alien in order to circumvent NJ
Family Law that required she reside in the state of New
Jersey where Mr. Conneran (her first husband) would
be able to parent his daughter.

X.Plaintiff’s Email, Attempts to Strong Arm Supervisor
and Interferes with court order

Y.Judge Brock’s Divorce Decision

Z.Email: Plaintiff Threatens to Disappear With Child

AA.Children’s Bill of Rights

BB.Letter of Recommendation from Son’s
After Care Provider.

CC.Letter To Judge Cassidy Regarding Gun Threat and
Suspension

Your Honor,

I am John Shearing the defendant. I am appealing a
divorce from a woman to whom I was never legally married. As you will see, from
reading this brief and examining the evidence, denial of parenting time is
being used as punishment for filing this appeal. This only harms my son and so
I am asking for immediate intervention. Please accept the following as my
motion brief.

2. Forced
To Divorce A Woman To Whom I Was Never Married.

On Nov 3 2005, I filed an appeal of my divorce
because I was never legally married to the plaintiff. She was married to
another man when she took her vows with me. Judge Brock refused to look at my
evidence and responded that I must not love my son. Nothing could be further
from the truth. I raised these issues to protect my sons trust fund which Judge
Brock intended to invalidate and confiscate in order to pay the plaintiff’s
lawyer. The transcript and correspondence between the judge and the plaintiff’s
lawyer will prove this. I maintain that children shouldn’t be required to pay
for their parents divorce. Especially if they were never married in the first
place. Finally, as the judge was unable to break the trust, she used equitable
distribution laws to award a portion of my children’s trust to the plaintiff.
But since their was no marriage, there can be no equitable distribution and so
the plaintiff has no right to any of my children’s assets. That is why the
appeal is so important. Later in the Trial, I asked to introduced this evidence
in reference to the character of the plaintiff. The evidence was a simple
certification of facts written in Guatemala butwith a certified English translation Exhibit
A. The judge told me
that she would not be able to understand this simple certification without an
expert witness in Guatemalan law. Finally, after making it clear that I would
not turn over my children’s trust fund without exhausting every possible appeal
and using every form of legal resistance, the judge threatened to stop me from
parenting my son because I gave him a toy Star Wars blaster. Specifically, she
said thatshe thought perhaps I had
damaged my son’s psyche by giving him the toy and that she would need to
personally perform an expert psychological evaluation on my son before he could
visit with me. Give me a break; the judge holds a doctor’s degree in law but
needs an expert to understand a simple certification, yet somehow she has the
qualifications to do and expert evaluation on my son’s psyche? The threat was
loud and clear. "IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR SON, THEN TURN OVER THE TRUST
FUND." I never did sign over my children's trust fund, and so the judge
made good on her threat by assigning a visitation supervisor who was known to
be unavailable. She knew because I told her. The transcript I ask for will show
all this. Finally, at one point in the trial, the plaintiff’s lawyer was
standing over me as I was sitting. In order to maintain eye contact I was
leaning back in my chair (I should have been in the witness box at eye level
with my opponent). At this point thejudge
told me to “Sit up like a big boy”. Then one of her guards struck me from
behind (This is all on the transcript and the recording). Now, fearing for my
safety, I left the courtroom and they continued the trial without me. The
transcripts will prove all of what I just told you. Lt Frank of the Sheriff’s
Department took my statement on the officers assault Exhibit B.

3. Case Background and Proof Of A
Legitimate Appeal

1.Elisa Gonzalez, (Plaintiff), married a school
principal, Mark Conneran, in the early 1990s and produced a daughter from that
marriage.

2.After a year or there about Ms. Gonzalez filed a
domestic violence claim against her husband (later dismissed) saying that her
husband threatened to kidnap their daughter. This complaint against Mr. Conneran
is in the possession of Judge Brock but is only available to me by in camera
inspection so I cannot include it as an exhibit. Still, I believe that you can
access it.

3.Immediately after filing this complaint, Ms. Gonzalez
filed for divorce.

4.On December 30
1992 the plaintiff entered into a marriage with Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx an
alien born in Canada.
Exhibit Cis their marriage certificate.

5.Ms. Gonzalez explained during sworn testimony before
the Honorable Judge Pisansky, Exhibit D, that she entered into
this marriage with Xxxx in order to circumvent NJ Family Law that required she
reside in the state of New Jersey where Mr. Conneran (her first husband) would
be able to parent his daughter. Mr. Xxxxxxxxxx received access to our United
States for his complicity. In other words,
she admittedly entered into a marriage for the sole purpose of separating a
father from his child. This one act simultaneously spits on the institution of
marriage, immigration law, and family law.

6.After leaving the state, of New
Jersey with her daughter, Ms. Gonzalez and Mr.
Xxxxxxxxxx parted company, but never had their marriage dissolved. It may seem
at first hard to prove this fact. After all, how do you prove that something
didn’t happen? But since the plaintiff has admitted to the marriage, I believe
the burden of proof that the marriage was dissolved falls on her. Despite
repeated requests to produce documents that show conclusively, that the
marriage was dissolved, Ms. Gonzalez was only able to produce a certification
of facts forged in Guatemala,
which is only a preliminary step towards an annulment. This is Exhibit A
which states on the second page under the heading of SECOND, “For all of the
above, Elisa Maria Gonzalez makes this sworn statement, so it will be recorded
on a Notarial Certification in order to initiate all the corresponding
proceedings to obtain the annulment of her marriage to Xxxx Xxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx”. But Ms. Gonzalez has never provided documentation to demonstrate
that she followed through and initiated all the corresponding proceedings to
obtain the annulment.

7.In fact, during deposition and under oath, the
defendant denied even knowing Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, the man who is still her
husband. See Exhibit E.

8.When the plaintiff took her wedding vows with me on Jan 30th 1997 she represented to me
and to the State Of New Jersey
that she was unmarried and available for marriage. Please see Exhibit F,
which was our marriage certificate. Obviously this makes our own marriage null
and void. Worse, it was a horrific waste of 4 years of my life where I
bankrupted myself in every possible way trying to succeed at a marriage that
didn’t even exist and was never intended to last.

9.A couple of years after our marriage ceremony Ms.
Gonzalez and I were gathered with her family when they started talking about a
marriage that took place in Florida that allowed Ms. Gonzalez to remove her
daughter from the State of New Jersey and away from her daughters father. This
how I found out about this marriage. I asked Ms. Gonzalez about the marriage and
asked her to see her divorce papers. It was then that she told me that the
marriage had never been dissolved

10.In
April of 2001, 4 ˝ years ago, I was seeking a divorce fromthe plaintiff because she was having an
intimate relationship with a convicted murderer at the prison where she was
working. She was eventually fired for this Exhibit G.

11.In
order to gain an advantage in the divorce proceedings, the plaintiff told the
police that I had threatened to kidnap our child (the exact same claim she made
against her first husband when seeking a divorce from him. I was arrested and
jailed for the first time in my life. Fortunately, when the issue came before
Judge Brock, I was able to produce and email from the plaintiff to her sister
stating that she was going to set me up in this wayExhibit H.

12.So
Judge Brock released me and allowed me to return to my home, but failed to
punish the plaintiff for bearing false witness against me and for having me
falsely jailed.

13.Emboldened
by the judges indifference to abuse of domestic violence law, the plaintiff
abducted my son. She ripped him right out of my hands and disappeared with him
while I was in municipal court trying to cleanup the false charges. The
plaintiff knew this would terrify me because I was abducted by my father when I
was 9. I called the police but they informed me that they could not intervene
in the matter until 24 hours had passed. Since the plaintiff admitted to having
abducted her first child by use of marriage to an illegal alien Exhibit D,
and since the plaintiff had threatened to take my son to Guatemala
if there were problems between us (she has wealthy family there), I panicked
and tried to rescue my child. This is exactly what the plaintiff expected me to
do. Well aware that I was kidnapped as a child, the plaintiff knew I would
react out of fear for my child. As you can see, since filing false domestic
charges didn’t work, the plaintiff used my child only 3 days later to entrap me
in a real domestic violence situation, For this I was convicted of assault (not
of kidnapping as the plaintiff maintains). Understanding now that I had just
given up any chance of raising my child, I fell into despair and lost my mind.
Nothing I did for the next few months made any sense. I was hospitalized 5 time
for suicidal ideation and for one serious attempt that nearly cost me my life.
Oddly enough, you will see later in this brief, that the plaintiff does indeed
abscond with my child to Guatemala and has her passport revoked and is confined
to an area of only 100 miles from her home for committing this offence. So my
fears were well founded.

14.Also
in 2001 I called the plaintiff and sent her 3 letters asking for reconciliation
in violation of a restraining order (why on earth could I have possibly wanted
to continue with this woman? Clearly, the strain of all this caused me to lose
my sanity).

15.For
all of the above I was given a 3 ˝ month sentence which I served in the Union
County Jail in 2001. Since leaving the jail until this day, I have been fully
compliant with the law.

16.Jail
was a transforming experience which rid me of my need to reconcile with the
plaintiff and I have never broken the law since. That is more than 4 years that
I have been compliant with the law. In fact, when Judge Depuis heard the
account of my jail experience, she removed the condition of my probation
requiring anger management.

Although I have not broken the law
since 2001, I have been falsely jailed and hauled into court many times just
for being involved in my son’s life. One time, I spent 3 days in jail for
giving my son a toy. Finally, my case came before Judge McDaniel of the Union
County Court who determined that it is not a crime to give toys to your
children and so he released me from jail. As of this day, I continue to stay as
involved with my son as the law permits. I do this despite the high risk that
plaintiff will deceive the courts again into having me jailed. Many fathers
would give up and walk away from their children. I will not despite the risk of
more false jailings.

I have a letter frommy psychiatrist stating that I am not a
danger to anyone and that she sees no reason that I can not have unsupervised
contact with my son. See Exhibit I.

I have a current Rahway
taxi license Exhibit J for which I passed a full background check
by the Rahway Police. As part of my job I transport children all the time.

Judge Brock made claim to the Sheriff’s Department
that I might be a threat to her. This was nothing more than character
assassination meant to limit my access to the court and to falsely paint me as
a danger/anger management problem. As mentioned before, Judge Depuis has
already ruled that I am not an anger management problem and as such removed the
requirement from my probation that I take anger management counseling. How often
does that happen? Also, as a result of the judge’s claim that I might be a
danger to her, I have been investigated by Lt Frank of the Union County
Sheriff’s department and Detective Lubertazzi of the NJSP Central Security Unit
(609 341 5058). These are the guys that investigate death threats
against the Governor and other public officials. Both men have determined that
I am committed to using only legal means to accomplish my goals and that I pose
no threat of any kind. This is the absolute truth. This kind of character
assassination only raises barriers to understanding the situation and really
solving problems. Sadly, thousands of men are falsely labeled anger management
problems by a few bad judges because destroying the credibility of one ofthe litigants makes it easy and simple to
make politically correct decisions and makes it possible to quickly move on to
the next case. But nothing is solved this way and people continue to suffer.

4.
Defendant Files Parenting Plan Motion After Divorce Proceedings

The basis of my appeal is this that parenting time
was used in an attempt to strong arm me into signing my children’s trust fund
over to the plaintiff and her lawyer and that the trust fund was the reason I
was forced to divorce a woman to who I was never married. For this reason, I
filed a parenting plan with Judge Cassidy in the hopes of having parenting time
with my son. Please see Exhibit K
the parenting plan brief.

5.Judge
Cassidy Declines To Consider Parenting Plan But Awards $10,000 To Plaintiff In
Direct Opposition Of The Rule Used To Deny Parenting Time.

On Dec 16 2005 Judge Cassidy declined my motion for modification
of parenting time. Exhibit L is
the order. The judge used rule 2:9-1 which states that the Appellate Court has
supervision and control of the proceedings on appeal. Oddly, on the same day,
the judge provided an order Exhibit M allowing the plaintiff to takemy $10,000 trust fund. The one that I had requested be used to pay for
transcripts of the divorce proceedings. In this case, the judge decided not to
invoke Rule 2:9-1 and kept jurisdiction of that matter. I understand, that the
trial court is to keep jurisdiction in matters of enforcement of court orders,
but both matters required the reversal of a previous court order, so enforcement
was not in question. Also, Both issues were not yet decided. It seems to me
that both decisions were inconsistent with each other and biased towards the
plaintiff.

For the above reasons, I amrequesting parenting time with my child by
way of this motion. The plan is as follows: For probably a year and a half,
Irene Shearing, my first wife (not the plaintiff), had been acting as
visitation supervisor for my 8 year old son and I. Irene and I were married for
16 years and are still very good friends. We have a daughter Kathryn who is now
19 years old and we have always worked well together in raising her. My
daughter and I are very close, talk frequently, and see each other once a week.

Supervised visitations with Jack
were every Saturday for 11 hours. Irene would first drive down from Moonachie
to Rahway which took 45 minutes
and, then pick me up at the taxi garage in Rahway.
Then we would drive to the plaintiffs house and pick up my son and drive all
the way back to Moonachie. This was fun for my son because I was paying
attention to him while Irene would drive. Then Irene would accompany us where
ever we needed to go for 10 hours and then drive us back to Rahway and drop us
off and then she drove another 45 minutes back toMoonachie.

Irene works longhours as a medical technician 5, sometimes 6
days a week. Some weeks she had literally no time to herself. As I mentioned
she maintained this schedule for a very long time and it finally took it’s toll
on her health andwell being. Irene was
already under a lot of financial strain and had to declare bankruptcy because
the money that I used to pay her in child support became unavailable when these
proceedings destroyed my ability to earn a living and stripped me of all my
assets. Clearly, Irene has sustained heavy collateral damage in this legal war.
This makes her generosity even more amazing. Finally one night after dropping
us offand returning to Moonachie, tired
from all this driving, she received a traffic ticket that cost her over $200
and a lot of time to straiten out. At this point Irene realized that she
couldn’t continue to supervising these visitations, and I supported her
decision. That was late spring or early summer.

During these supervised visits,
Jack has benefited from the joy and great self-esteem that a child receives
when a loving parent devotes time and attention. Jack loved our time together
and his only complaint when interviewed by Judge Brock was that he wished I had
better eyesight so that I wouldn’t have to take off my glasses before we
wrestled. For all of the time that Irene supervised, things went along
smoothly.

While Irene is unable to supervise,
she is more than willing to open her home for this purpose. IfJack and I can get there, we are welcome in
her home for the duration of the visitation. Irenehas provided a letter confirming this (Exhibit
N) and is available by phone at the following number to testify: (201)
444 4530.

There is no problem preventing me
from caring for my son during visitation. It is the plaintiff and I that should
never have unsupervised contact. So In order to facilitate visitation, I
recommend that the plaintiff drop my son off at the Rahway police station where
I will be waiting for him. It is then only a short walk to the train station where
a train ride,short subway ride and then
a short bus ride brings us to Irene’s home. When visitation is over, this
process can be reversed. Probably, most of the time, Irene will let me borrow
her car to transport Jack.

In conclusion, I have a place to
care for Jack which has already proven for 1 ˝ years to be safe, fun, and
familiar. I have for the past 4 ˝ years proven compliant with the restraining
order and remained free of entanglements with the plaintiff. My son wishes to
spend time with me and I wish to spend time with him. There are simply no
problems preventing me from caring for my son. The problem is between the
plaintiff and I. Just recently, the plaintiff has sent me a harassing email
against her own restraining order Exhibit O. This demonstrates
that she is still looking for drama and conflict. For this reason, I ask that a
restraining order be placed on her such that she may not come near me or
communicate with me directly. So as long as my child can be transferred in a
safe public manner such as at the police station where the plaintiff and I do
not have contact with each other, everything will go smoothly. I ask that we
keep the same parenting schedule outlined in the divorce decision and that I be
allowed to care for my son and transport him without supervision. Please Your
Honor, this boy wants and deserves to have time with his father and I dearly
want to spend time with him. I am ready and fully able to care for my child and
everything is in place to facilitate visitation.

6.Nov 21 2005,
Plaintiff Asks For Passport AndPermission To Take Child To Bahamas

On Nov 21, my son's mother filed a motion with Judge
Cassidy to regain her passport and my son's so that she could take my son out
of the country to the Bahamas.

7.I Advised
Judge Cassidy That Plaintiff Is Flight Risk

I agreed to this on the condition that she provide proof
of her destination prior to a court decision Exhibit Q(I believed she was a flight risk and so did
the courts otherwise they would not have confiscated the passports in the first
place). The Judge Cassidy declined to hear oral argument on the matter.

8. Dec 16, 2005, Judge Cassidy Returns Passports to Plaintiff
and Allows Her To Take Our Son To The Bahamas (specifically)

On Dec 16 2005 Judge Cassidy granted the plaintiff’s
motion and provided a court order Exhibit Lthat allowed her to reclaim her passport (Previously
Confiscated) and to take our child to the Bahamas.The judge also mandated that I was to be told
the exact location ofour child. The
judge did not however check for verification of the plaintiff’s destination as
I had implored.

9.
Plaintiff
Defied Judge’s Court Order:

a.Child Taken To Guatemala Against Order Without
Medication.

b.Childs Location Hidden Also Against Order.

On the very day that they were to
travel to the Bahamas, a small plane from Miami destined to the Bahamas crashed
into the ocean killing all aboard. I knew from past experience that this was
the exact route that they were supposed to take to the Bahamas because first
the whole family would meet in Miami where the plaintiff’s parents lived, and
they would all fly together. So terrified, I called Elisa's lawyer and he told
me that they were not on that plane (Thank God). Still, he did not give me
their destination as required by the court order.

In the end, it turned out that my
son was taken to Guatemala (not the Bahamas as the court order Exhibit L
specified) which was just as Exhibit Q predicted. Further, I was
not told his location until his return. I was told by my son who was afraid to
tell me but thought it was important. Examination of the passports proved my
son correct and that I had reason to believe that the plaintiff would lie to
Judge Cassidy. To make things worse, the plaintiff deprived my child of
inoculation and medication recommended by The Center for Disease Control when
traveling to Guatemala.

10. Our Child Became Sick

Since my sons return from Guatemala
he had been suffering from flu like symptoms and had been sleeping in school.
While I prayed to God he was only suffering the flu, it was quite possible that
he had picked up a tropical disease from Guatemala as most of these diseases
start out with flu like symptoms. In fact, tropical diseases are very often
misdiagnosed in the United States because they mimic the common flu in the
beginning.

As I was
concerned, I called The Center For Disease Control at 404 498 1600. They
expressed concern about what happened to my son and gave the following
information and recommendations. The CDC reports that Guatemala represents
a Malaria risk in rural areas only at altitudes lower than 1,500 meters (4,921
feet).

It was latter discovered that my son spent time on the
beach (the lowest possible altitude) and was near areas that he described as
jungle.

The CDC reports that Malaria is
always a serious disease and may be a deadly illness. If you become ill with a
fever or flu-like illness either while traveling in a malaria-risk area or
after you return home (for up to 1 year), you should seek immediate medical
attention and should tell the physician your travel history.

As I mentioned, my son became ill right after
returning home.

The CDC advises that all travelers
to malaria-risk areas in Central America including infants and children, should
take chloroquine as their antimalarial drug.

My
son was not protected by chloroquine.

11. Plaintiff Refused to Take Child To Doctor

Upon finishing my research, I determined
that my son may be at risk so I filed an emergent motion with Judge Cassidy to
have my child examined by his doctor to be sure he was well. Exhibit S is my motion
brief. In response to my motion, the plaintiff filed a reply.Exhibit T stating that she
had no intention of taking my son to the doctor. This was after becoming aware
of Center For Disease Control recommendations. She claimed that she was unable
to afford it. As it turned out, she was out of compliance with a previous court
order mandating that she provide health insurance for our child. I responded to
the plaintiff’s reply (Exhibit U is the brief) by noting that the plaintiff was able to
afford a trip to Guatemala in defiance of a court order and that she owns a
house. So her claim that she was unable to afford a doctor visit for our child
was not credible. I on the other hand was granted the right to proceed as
indigent by the Honorable Howard Kestin because all my money is going to my
legal defense and for protection of my child.. Still, I offered to pay for my
son’s doctor visit.

12. Judge Confiscates Passports
Again and Orders Child To Doctor

The Judge considered the facts and
provided a court order Exhibit V that:

a. confiscated the plaintiff’s passport
and our child’s again.

b. ordered that the plaintiff is not to
travel outside a 100 mile radius.

c. ordered that the plaintiff take our
child to the doctor within 24 hours, and to tell the doctor where the child had
been.

d. She ordered that I be given a report of
the checkup.

e. That she find health insurance for my
son within the month.

13. Plaintiff Hides Information From Doctor.

I called my son’s doctor and asked if he
was indeed examined and he was. The doctor volunteered over the phone that
usually the parents come in before a trip and tell the doctor where they are
going, the doctor will then inoculate and medicate as required to protect the
child. The doctor also told me that she asked the plaintiff if my son had fever
or chills and that the plaintiff said no. And so the doctor did not order a
blood test. As you know from above, my son had flu like symptoms which is why I
requested that he be examined. I reported to the doctor that my son did have
flu like symptoms when he returned from Guatemala and the plaintiff admitted
this to the court. I asked the doctor to include in her report to the court
that she asked if my child had fever and chills, and that the plaintiff said
no. At this point the doctor became protective of the plaintiff and said that
she would call the plaintiff and question her on this issue but did not say
that she would include it in the report. I told that doctor that any questions
you asked during the examination should be included in the report. It this is
especially important because the doctor’s decision not to order tests may have
been different if the plaintiff had been forth coming about my son’s recent
medical history. As the doctor wanted to protect the plaintiff, she told me
that she asked the plaintiff in the present tense. In other words, the doctor
asked if my son was suffering from fever and chills at the time of the
examination. Then she told me that she was not interested in getting involved
with issues between the mother and father and that she was only trying to
protect the child. I told the doctor that my goals were the same and that the
protection of my child requires that the doctor have accurate and complete information
and that the report to the courts disclose what the doctor knew at the time of
the examination. That was the end of our first conversation.

Latter I called the doctor again and
because I remembered what the doctor told me about parents usually coming in
before a trip and getting the required inoculations and prophylactic medicine.
I asked the doctor if she would include that in her report. Again the doctor
told me that she was not interested in getting involved. I replied that I just
wanted her to give a complete report and to tell the truth. The doctor assured
me that she always tells the truth and that was the end of the conversation.

I am telling you this because this tells
you something about priorities of both the plaintiff, and the doctor. The
plaintiff did not actually lie to the doctor, nor did the plaintiff violate the
court order. The court order only said that the plaintiff must disclose where
my child had been. There was no order that she was required to divulge that my
child had been sick with flu like symptoms. Still, the plaintiff wasn’t honest
either at the potential peril of our son. The CDC says that in the early stages
of malaria, fever and chills come and go every three or four days. So
knowingabout my son’s current symptoms was
not necessarily an indication of his medical condition. Clearly, from the
beginning of this mess, until the present the plaintiff as been dishonest when
it suited her interests at the expense and risk of my son’s well being.

14. Plaintiff Tries To Strong Arm Visitation Supervisor.

My first wife Irene who has a valid
court order to supervise visitations with my son and has done so for about a
year and a half had stopped supervising last June because it was exhausting all
of her free time and was having a negative impact on her health. I was sad
about this but I supported her decision. We remain good friends. As chance
would have it, Irene bought a Christmas present for my son Jack and wanted to
give it to him. She also wanted to give me a nice surprise because my birthday
was coming up. So she wrote to the plaintiff and offered to care for Jack one
day, which worked out to be January 14th.Exhibit W are emails between
Irene and the plaintiff. The exhibits show that the plaintiff agreed to the
visitation although as visitation is court ordered, her agreement is not
required. Moving along the time line a few days to court order Exhibit V,
you see that the plaintiff has just had her passport yanked and her movement
was limited to a 100 mile radius of her home. Furthermore, the plaintiff was
compelled to take our child to the doctor and pay for it. Worst of all, she
understands that she has almost completely destroyed her chances of winning two
huge law suits that she had been banking on for years. The plaintiff is angry
and it shows in the next exhibit. Exhibit X shows another email
from the plaintiff to Irene (the email is reprinted below).

Irene,

It
has come to my attention that you have yet to appear in front of the Court to
testify to the seriousness of your commitment to supervise any
future visitation between John R. Shearing and Jack, as was ordered in the
Final Judgment of Divorce of Oct. 14, 2005, paragraph 2:a, by Judge K. Brock.
(Attached)

This
provision was entered for good cause. I am allowing this one time
Christmas visit only with the understanding and agreement that
any future supervised visitation will be scheduled only after you
have complied with the aforementioned Court Order and can provide proof of
same.

Please
reply that you are in full agreement with this at your earliest
convenience. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume that you are not
in agreement with this and the visit for Saturday, Jan. 14th, 2006 is
cancelled.

Elisa
Gonzalez

As you can see, the plaintiff
claims to have found a provision in Judge Brock’s divorce decision Exhibit
Y mandating that Irene appear in court before anymore visitations can
take place. But if you read the provision (reprinted below), you can see that
this is simply not what the judge wrote.

a.His present schedule of parenting time every
Saturday from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. may be expanded to alternate
weekends from Saturday morning until Sunday evening if the defendant files a
post-judgment motion to expand his parenting time and Irene Shearing certifies
or testifies that she is willing to provide the necessary supervision.

It seems to me that the plaintiff wants every other
weekend without any children and so she twisted Judge Brocks words in an
attempt to force the visitation supervisor into accepting those conditions.
Please imagine for a minute if I told one of the Union County Supervision
Volunteers that they had to supervise for the whole weekend or there would be
no supervision at all. It’s just nuts. In any case, the plaintiff knows that
all communications of a legal nature must go through her lawyer Mr. Duff. So I
advised Irene not to respond to the emails because answering them would only
invite trouble.

15. Plaintiff Forces Our Child To Tears.

On Friday the 13th, the night before the
visitation was to take place, the plaintiff forced my son to call me and demand
that Irene call her. My son told me that his mother would not allow him to
visit if Irene did not call. I told my son that his mother my not use him to
pass messages. I explained that Mommy has a lawyer for that. I then told my son
not to worry and that we would be there to pick him up at the correct time and
that his mother would allow him to visit because I had the judges permission.

My son then called me again soon after. There was a lot
of stress in his voice. Again he told me that Irene must call the plaintiff or
she would not allow us to see each other. I tried to comfort and reassure my
son, but it was impossible. I begged him not to worry and to get some sleep.
Still, I don’t think my child slept well that night.

On Saturday morning, my son called me again. This time he
was crying hard. He told me that the visit was off. I told him that we would be
there at the correct time and that we would have our visit.

Soon after, my son called again crying even harder. He
told me that he and his mother would not be there when we arrived and that this
was the last time we would speak together because his mother was taking his
phone away from him. I told him I was still coming and that I would call the
police to help us work it all out if required. My son told me that he didn’t
want his mother to go to jail, so I assured him that no one was going to jail
and that the police were only going to explain the law to his mother.

Now in the next email Exhibit Z, you can see that
the plaintiff threatens again to disappear with my child. Good thing Judge
Cassidy confiscated her passport and limited the radius that she could travel.

It's
7:05 am on 1-14-06. I haven't heard from you or received any reply to my
emails. I also tried to call you and was told it was the wrong number by the
person who answered. Obviously you are trying to dodge me. As
I wrote you in my past two emails, without your stated agreement to abide to
the Court Order of 10-14-2005 there will be no visit today.

Jack
will be very disappointed.

Don't
bother trying to come down and making a scene, or whatever else you have
in mind, we will not be here.

Elisa
Gonzalez

The plaintiff’s behavior is exactly the same as it was
when:

1.She
married an alien for the purpose of separating her first child from the child’s
father, Exhibit D

2.When
she snatched my child right out of my arms in a municipal court building and
disappeared with him five years ago.

3.When
she disappeared with my child to Guatemala a few weeks ago.

Finally I got a call from my son telling me that he would
be allowed to visit after all. Of course he would be allowed to visit, I had a
court order mandating the visitation. But why did my son have to suffer so? On
this issue I will ask you to look at the back of the Trans-Parenting guide book
distributed by Don Shapiro at the Union County Courthouse Exhibit AA.There you will see a Bill of Children’s
Rights. Please notice Point Nine which states, “To be a child and not asked
to lie, spy, or send messages between my parents.”Clearly, my child’s basic right to be a child
has been violated and he has suffered for it. The truth is that my son has been
suffering for years. He suffers every time the plaintiff puts her needs before
his and uses him to manipulate me.

17.Indications Are: The Plaintiff and Mr. Duff
Are No Longer Communicating.

I say this because the plaintiff tried to strong arm
the visitation supervisor though my child instead of using Mr. Duff to do this
work as she normally does.

18.Why
This Is Dangerous For My Child

As a result of the poor communication between the
plaintiff and Mr. Duff, my child is suffering. He is suffering because the
plaintiff is not getting any feedback from the court which would help her
understand the damage she is doing to herself and to my son. At this point, Mr.
Duff has given up all hope of cashing in on this tragedy and he knows that the
more damage the plaintiff does to herself and to my son the quicker he will be
rid of her and free to exploit other families in crises. The point is
that,it is no longer in Mr. Duff’s
interest to try and protect my son from his mother’s poor judgment, and that
puts my son at even greater riskas Ms.
Gonzalez continues to fall apart. At this point, there is no one to help Ms.
Gonzalez understand what the court requires of her and that is a dangerous
situation for my son.

18. Child Threatens To Defend Himself With Gun

My son who is a 3rd
grader at the Roosevelt Elementary School in Rahway was just suspended for
threatening to bring in a gun. This occurred after school on school property.
What happened is that another other boy was continually challenging my son to
punch him. My son declined and backed away 3 times before he became frightened
enough to make that threat. Upon hearing the threat, the other boy told his
mother who was standing right there and my child was subsequently suspended.
Ibelieve this occurred because there
was no adult to care for my son after school. I am available everyday for this
purpose and did so everyday for a full year under supervised conditions. Exhibit
BB Is a letter from my sons after care provider, Ms Rosie, who
supervised daily visitation with my son.. This confirms that I have a long and
steady record of providing care for my son. Ms. Rosie is available for phone
conversation and is willing to testify over the phone as required. Her home
number is (732) 680-0547. Also she can be reached on her cell phone at (732)
396-1065.

Unfortunately, my
son’s school will not communicate with me on my son’s condition even though
they have a court order in their possession mandating that I am to receive all
records. I am attempting to address this in family court now. Exhibit CC
is a letter to Judge Cassidy with supporting news paper articles that
demonstrate the link between school shootings and bullying. From the article it
is clear the children go through an enormous amount of torment before bringing
a gun to school starts to seem like a good idea. I maintain that my son is
lonely, terrified, and angry in school and at home and that if this is not
addressed this king of thing will happen again. While suspending my son was
appropriate, we must address the root causes of the incident. At this point I
do not know what if anything is being done to help my son.

The plaintiff now understands that the only way the
courts can get information on my son’s condition is through telephone
conversation with me. For this reason, the plaintiff has taken away the cell
phone that I purchased for him and now monitors all calls and keeps them very
short. By doing this, the plaintiff has effectively made all my son’s current
problems disappear from the court’s view.

20. What I Am Asking The Court To Do

A.Please give immediate consideration to my parenting
plan. My 8 year old son and I have been apart for to long and he needs me
in his life.

B.After School Care: Please allow me to care for
my child after school if the plaintiff is unable to provide adult supervision
for him during this time.

C.Bifurcation: I maintain that throughout these
proceedings in the Family Court, child welfare considerations have been used in
attempt to strong arm me into rolling over on monetary issues. As such, child
welfare issues have not been addressed. For this reason, I am asking that the
case be bifurcated and all monetary issues and issues of whether or not the
marriage ever existed, be handled separately from all child welfare issues such
as parenting time, physical custody, and legal custody and so on.

D.Children First: I am further asking that all
child welfare issues be handled prior to monetary issues as this will help
reverse the damage done to my son when these issues were used for leverage.